ARE JEWS PIGS AND MONKEYS?

I have a very close Jewish friend who is conservative in many respects. Today he sent me a video of the Glenn Beck Show (on youtube.com) about the propaganda used by Muslim extremists to sway public opinion. In the video (among other things) young Muslim children are taught to hate Jews and associate them with monkeys and pigs. As evidence of the power of these teachings, some children (as young as three years old) were shown to recite their hate for Jews verbally. “Jews are monkeys and pigs”, a small child relented. The video noted that the basic means of teaching this hate was advocation by people the children looked up to - mostly their parents and religious leaders. I would surmise that my Jewish friend saw this teaching of false ideas to children as an aberration. But what struck me most about the way in which Muslim children are taught to hate Jews was not that this is in fact abhorrent, but rather that the technique used by hateful Muslims is the very same technique used by the Jews to teach their children their religious belief systems and values. And the same technique used by Catholics to teach their children religious beliefs and values. My conclusion is that what is glaringly missing from the learned process of acquiring a belief (which is not only lasting but which would propel someone in to insane acts of violence) is that it requires absolutely no rational examination. There is no examination of just how Jews are monkeys and pigs - these children are told they just are. The children usually have no personal contact nor experience with Jews. And the fact that such a strong ingrained belief can be taught without any real examination by the believer, such that he or she can use that belief to kill someone, is (to me) eye opening. I wonder aloud if the majority (if not all) of the Christians and Jews realize that the way they formed their religious beliefs (and their values) is in this very same way those small Muslim children learned to believe that they are monkeys and pigs. The parallel to me was something that over-shadows the intended message of the Beck episode. Here was a parallel example of a way people acquire their beliefs in every major religion in the world - used to insinuate just how insane those beliefs were. It struck me that the same thing could easily be said about people who believe that god exists. Except that the belief in god is more universally accepted than killing Jews because they are monkeys and pigs. Fundamentalism is essentially a firm belief in anything that has no basis in “reason” or “logic”. I would add that these fundamental beliefs often involve a total lack of any examination of the belief. There’s no real thought about what it is we have learned to believe. And for some there never is. By this definition the Muslim extremist who believes Jews are monkeys and pigs is no different in his chosen belief than the Jew who believes god wants him to eat only Kosher foods. They each were taught this to be a truth; they each practice the truth without any rational thought as to the validity of it; they each follow the belief blindly and it dictate their actions. What separates them is simply the acceptability of the end result. We are not shocked by the Jew who refuses to eat a pig. We are, however, shocked and outraged (morally) by a Muslim who kills a Jew because he believes he is a pig. It’s a strange world we live in indeed.

How You Can Change the World

I am an American. And there is no doubt in my mind that I live in the greatest and most civilized internal nation in the world. My standard of living is beyond adequate, my potential within this country is unlimited, and my status is subject simply to my abilities and work ethic. I am also a member of this world. I reside in a world with war and famine and hunger and strife and death and destruction and violence and hatred and conflict and more conflict. It seems conflict and not cooperation, hatred and not love, selfishness and not self-sacrifice are all fast becoming the global norms. I am not a participant in these things on a macro level: I have not started a war; I have not exploded a car bomb; I have not killed a human; I have not paralyzed a human; I have not taken anyone hostage; I have not created a nuclear bomb; I have not threatened to use a weapon of mass destruction; I have not taken over a country nor a government by force. Nor am I prone to the forces which encompass these types of actions: I do not seek power or control over other individuals; I do not seek to convert people to my point of view; I am not interested in hating individuals based upon their race, religion, creed, color, economic status; I am not interested in accumulating wealth to the point of excess. But I have to wonder - as a member of this world am I somehow to blame for these events? And if not, is there something that I can do to change them?

I have on occasion felt anger or even violence toward another individual. I have on a very micro level wished ill upon someone who either threatened me or caused me pain. But for the most part the extent of my participation (even on a micro level) has been limited to verbal attacks. And even those it seems are rather isolated and limited. Yet my ability to participate in conflict on the micro level gives me some understanding of the forces at work in the global macro level - and they are from my experiences intense and difficult to shake. Nevertheless, even this insight does not lend itself to a solution regarding my potential (as an individual in a free nation) to diffuse global conflicts, create world peace, or change the prejudices and attitudes of the millions of people who have them. It seems insurmountable from an individual standpoint. Any attempt to try and stop the avalanche of despair with bare hands would seem at best futile, and at worst insane.

I watch and read and listen to anti-war protestors, and have images of them dating back to the Vietnam War. And I find these types of approaches to have a minimal impact on the actions of the people involved. Nor do any of these protests ultimately eliminate the sources of conflict on a global scale. As evidence by the fact that war protests have come and gone along side different wars between different parties and for different reasons.

I have seen the political packs form and the arguments rage and the debates continue about war and the like and from a historical stand-point these types of events have no lasting impact on the future of conflict. Wars have continued through the ages despite the formation of groups of opposition. None of these irritated intermittent blisters seem to offer any long-lasting dent in the propensity of humans to war.

The basic premise of any fight is for something. And the world is ripe with somethings that people value for various reasons which are directly opposed to those things which other people value for their own various reasons and these variables are an inevitable by-product of our existence. Scarcity in resources, a psychotic affiliation to some or any belief system, the differences in our genetic code, the differences in the way we look or behave, the predisposition of animals to often seek conflict, the inherent propensity in us to seek revenge and get even, the inherent propensity in the majority of humans to seek control and power of their environment and the people around them, the desire of people to strengthen their pack by either converting other individuals to their point of view or destroying them, and others, are all elements of this world which are here to stay. This is our stew, it’s cooked and we have no more ingredients to add.

When interpreted and applied properly, there are fundamental elements of Judo-Christian-Muslim-Buddhist (etc.) belief systems which offer a solution to these global problems. What can violence become in the face of compassion? What can hatred become in the face of love? What can scarcity become in the face of self-sacrifice and cooperation? What can hatred become in the face of understanding? What can self-control and submission become in the face of a threat? Yet even these solutions seem to offer no hope for an individual faced with global conflicts caused principally by an indifference to them. How can anyone profess the power of love to someone in another culture who rationalizes god as a basis for war and killing? Or self-sacrifice and corporation and sharing to a society that overwhelmingly values the perverse accumulation of material possessions? That worships the wealthy? That admires the powerful? How does one extrapolate compassion for the plight of the hungry to an individual who would pay millions of dollars for a single baseball?

So then the question remains, what can an individual do to change global events beyond their immediate realm of influence? No one at the bottom can start the climb at the top of the mountain. What’s required is a continuation of things like truth, love, self-sacrifice, compassion, caring, self-control on the micro level in the hopes that a chain reaction can be created toward (or to) the top. When you are kind to someone they recognize that and they remember that and they may be led by example. When you diffuse a conflict with rational behavior it’s possible (although not probable) that someone who is prone to violence may remember your actions in his next potential conflict and act accordingly. What is required is your individual behavior in situations of despair to be exemplary. The next time someone asks you for a dollar, do not judge them, give them the dollar. The next time someone threatens you, do not fight them, diffuse the situation. Then next time someone needs help, help them. For leading by example at the micro level is the best way for anyone to make a difference in our world.

PLEASE, CONSIDER THE SOURCE!

Inherently we Americans are drawn to conflict. Conflict (and often violence) it seems is always at the fringe of our behavior waiting to push it self to the surface. A middle finger, one guy who cuts you in line, or even a dirty look can set us off. For some of us resorting to conflict and violence requires nothing more than some form of insult. Nothing more than a simple word or two directed in a negative way at our person. What is it about something like an insult that would require someone to physically attack another individual? How do words create such strong reactions and equally strong behaviors which are contrary to a civilized existence? The answer is rather complicated because there are numerous variables which play a role in how we behave in any given situation. Things like environment, past influences, past results, past experiences, our beliefs (i.e. in god), etc. all play a role. However, there is a very short answer and that very short answer is: “our biological programming causes us to either seek or avoid conflict”. We are programmed to either (a) instinctively react to a threatening situation by defending our positions (dominant programs) or (b) by submitting (submissive programs) to the threat by backing down. Yes, just like on animal kingdom. And that’s why even when it seems improbable that controversy should ensue, it does. Let’s take a quick look at some examples:

Should anyone really care what Tom Cruise has to say about psychology? Isn’t he sort of like a homeless guy who calls you a loser from the alley when he tells Brooke Shields that psychology is bunk? If he told me that my air conditioner was bunk would I get insulted? Isn’t he an actor? Yet his words created controversy. So much so that they required an apology. How could this be? Who the heck is Tom Cruise when he’s talking about anything but acting (or maybe tooth polish)? Of course, good old Tom apologized to she-is-still-in-therapy-Brooke in the face of public pressure and a disintegrating public image. He was motivated to do so for his own sake and the whole thing died down and off the pages of People Magazine. And while I’m on the subject of drunken conflict creators, how about Mel Gibson? Does he really feel that way about Jews and if he does should they really care? He’s in the public eye but why do Jews care if THE ACTOR Mel Gibson doesn’t like them? He was raised a Catholic and there are inherent prejudices in any religious teaching. He made a movie about Christ where Jews are portrayed like some group of Zombies who chase Jesus through a mall - wait that’s not the movie. In any event, I’m sure there are plenty of drunk Jews who speak badly about Catholics. And probably even more who had a few bad things to say about Mel Gibson. But I’ll tell you, if some drunk blonde haired girl said she didn’t like brown haired guys it would just make sense to me - and nothing else. I don’t think I would need an apology.

Of course, it’s not only a drunk actor who can get the conflict going. In 1998 Reggie White (a three hundred plus pound football payer) outraged homosexuals when he said homosexuality is a decision, not a race, and it should not be placed on par with the civil rights movement. Homosexuals were outraged! How come? When a guy who knocks off heads for a living makes a statement concerning atypical sexual behavior how can someone get outraged? If he said my wife was a lousy blocker I might have to agree. But when he’s talking about her sexual preference I think it matters little what he thinks. In any event, White stood his ground when he said, “I would rather God not be mad at me and let people be mad at me, so I have to speak the truth — no matter the consequences." Of course, White died of a heart attack at only 43 caused by poor health including what looked to me to be a severe overweight condition. I guess in his mind sloth is not as big a sin as sexual immorality. Still White never apologized for what he believed -- conflict or no conflict. Take that Tom Cruise.

After the actors, the drunk actors, and the football players we then get to the untouchables. And those instances where the source itself has a role in creating additional controversy and conflict. Take for example the soothing words of Pope Benedict XVI when he recently said "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. Muslim leaders around the world to this day are continuing to demand a “full” apology (and not half of an apology). He’s the Pope - head of the Catholic Church. Why would Muslims care what he has to say about a religion he doesn’t believe in? It’s sort of like Darth Vadar making a speech in which he says all the Jedis are morons. Would the Jedis care? Why should they - he’s on the other side! And that’s why - because he is on the other side. There’s no rational reason to care what he says - it’s simply about defending a position. And it’s simply about a program which makes us want to do that.

So there you have it, absent any real explanation of why we get insulted, a desire to engage in conflict clearly emanates from some genetic programming stemming back to the times when you had to fight for your mate and for the top spot in the pack. That little thing inside that signals green when you get the finger. And for all of you who are insulted by any of this (or my Blog) - PLEASE, consider the source!

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE

Conservatism is a ploy. A ploy to get you (the middle class or non-wealthy) to help the wealthy and super wealthy in this country to protect their positions and possessions. Conservatism is a morally bankrupt belief system centered on self-interest. What conservatives seek is not to protect America (or the sanctity of America as they often claim) but rather the positions and the possessions of the most affluent Americans. We need only look at the basic positions of conservatives to see that conservative lore is based upon self-preservation and not (for example) self-sacrifice.

Conservatives often speak of cutting social spending, cutting their own personal taxes so that their own personal income can remain high, implementing the death penalty, harsher criminal sentences, the elimination of threats (like terrorists) by force and violence. All of these positions are aimed solely at maintaining one’s possessions or one’s positions without addressing the morality of the underlying means. While self-sacrifice entails helping someone at your own risk and/or your own peril, conservatism and it’s policies seek to eliminate the risks to one’s self (self interest). To eliminate both the peril and/or the cost associated with preventing or fixing the peril. In fact, the tools of a conservative are principally preservation and elimination. In the use of preservation, conservative policies deprive others who need a conservative’s possessions or positions from obtaining them. In the use of elimination (and to a lesser degree control), those people (locally, nationally and globally) who pose a threat to the positions or possessions of conservatives are eliminated (either killed or removed from society) through any and all means possible.

The Patriot Act; Harsher criminal sentences; Illegal searches and seizures; Warrant less wire taps; Who do these types of infringements target? Is it the (politically connected) wealthy and super wealthy? Is it the powerful? Is it the individual who has enough money that stealing is not necessary? Or are these types of infringements targeted to individuals at the lower end of the economic spectrum? At individuals who are essentially powerless in our country? But who nevertheless may pose a threat to a wealthy business man?

Who therefore wants the stiffest penalties for crime? And why? Who supports the death penalty? And why? Who seeks the harshest sentencing rules? And why? Who wants unaccountable aggressive police forces? And why? Who seeks to cut social programs? And why?

What is the foundation of these “conservative core values”? Are they to help people? Are they concepts which speak to self-sacrifice and love? Are they positions which help or hinder the downtrodden? Do they improve humanity?

In the mind of a conservative, a thief, a crook, a criminal, a poor person, a murderer is not a person with (spiritual or economic) potential but rather a potential future attacking entity. A person who could threaten their position or their possessions. A person who needs to be controlled and/or eliminated. A conservative does not accept that a criminal is person with a potentially rehabilitatable soul. Because a conservative focuses not on rehabilitation but rather elimination for the sake of their own position. Conservatives do not seek to address either the root causes of the threats to society or the possible transformation of these threats to a benign category, but rather their starvation, suppression and ultimately their elimination. Conservatives seek to deprive the lower class and poor in this country of the very means toward productively while simultaneously failing to acknowledge that the threats posed to them often arise from their inflicted positions of poverty. Conservatives do not consider what it might be like to have no wealth, no pinnacle position, no advantageous start, no or poor education. There is no thought that many individuals in this country begin life with an insurmountable starting position of despair. All that is central to conservative values are protection and possession of themselves.

A conservative appeals to other people to conform to their conservative beliefs and their ideals of maintaining the upper class in this country through various means. The most prevailing of which is fear. They motivate people to act by inciting their own basic self-preservation instinct. You better sign on to the Patriot Act’s freedom infringing policies because if you don’t the terrorists will get you. You better permit police to trample constitutional protections and permit warrant less searches and seizures because otherwise the criminals and terrorists will get you. You should permit harsher sentences or the criminals will get out of jail and get you. You should subscribe to the death penalty because it deters other killers from killing YOU. It’s always presented as being to YOUR benefit - but what it really is to the benefit of the people in power, the people with a great deal of money, and the people with a great deal of political connections. In short, the people who have the most things to lose. Do the poor really have a problem with theft? What is the likely-hood that the police are bashing down the door of a rich socialite and obtaining illegal evidence and that that socialite will go to jail (for example for ten years) ? How many rich socialites can not afford the best lawyers? How many rich socialites (by their sheer willingness to throw money at politicians) have some connection at the top somewhere that can bail them out of even the most over-reaching invasion of their civil, human or constitutionally protected rights?

To some extent the middle class in this country have the same core value system of protecting their position because they too actually have something to lose. The difference is that their positions are far less valuable. To offset this fact, the wealthy and super wealthy give the middle class simple diversionary pleasures to strengthen their desire to maintain their own lesser positions. They create positions of just enough comfort to make them follow the leaders.

The second most prevalent tactic of conservatives is to call anyone who is not immediately taken to support the wealthy, and super wealthy and their positions a traitor. Or worse yet, “un-American”. And in doing so they acknowledge that your failure to support the preservation of their wealth will lead to some diminution of our country. This is clever in that it plays upon our animal instinctual need to not only to belong, but to belong to a strong pack. If you don’t support the war in Iraq you’re un-American and you’re jeopardizing our country by doing so. Don’t you want to belong to the strongest pack? Don’t you want us to “win” the war so that we can maintain our position of power? Of course you do - it’s programmed behavior ingrained in all of us. Unfortunately, for so many people the reality is that these concepts are like drugs. They satisfy our programs to be dominant and in control and the strongest while simultaneously permitting us to feel “safe” and “secure”. All instinctual elements of our programming. And in this satiated drugged state we sacrifice our morality, That is why conservatives hammer the notion that they are “better able to protect us”. They know you are (by nature) afraid. They know that your natural instinctual fear will permit them to erode your constitutional rights so that they can keep their stuff and their lives in order. To erode your compassion for the criminal, your compassion for the poor, your over all sense of right and wrong. The real question is not “who is better able to protect you” but “who is better able to protect the possessory assets and positions of the wealthy and super-wealthy in this country?” And the answers are: those who will permit the erosion of our constitutional rights; those who will support the harshest sentences for criminals without addressing human rights, constitutional rights or even a persons humanity; those who will permit the killing (elimination) of the killers as opposed to those who would attempt to address the root causes of crime or the rehabilitation of a person’s soul; those who will permit war; those who will permit the slaughter of innocent women and children in the name of self-preservation.

Conservatives are not about fixing “our” problems but rather they are about maximizing control and/or eliminating “their” problems. They are not about humanity. They do not seek to address the root causes of evil but rather foster a perpetuation of their own morally cloaked evil toward their own self-preservationist goals. The Iraqi war is prime example of this - and naturally an extension of these core conservative self-preservation beliefs and modalities. It also offers us a glimpse in to how conservatives manipulate the public to continue their protectionist policies by “any and all means”. This (of course) includes killing and violence and death. Remember, protectionism of what they have is paramount. And it’s not the protectionism of our “American way of life” or even our safety but “their” way of life and “their” safety. Your safety is how they package it. That’s how they get you to sign on. But the truth is that their lives are a far cry from the lives of we average Americans.

Without speculating on what the Iraqi war may or may not really be about (oil, weapons of mass destruction, etc.), lets look at it in the context of conservative preservation and elimination. In the context of morality. In the context of what we can definitely say it does and does not entail.

The Iraqi war definitely entails violence and death - and the violence and death of innocent people (including women and children). It definitely entails the destruction of American families - over 10,000 dead American soldiers are a testament to this. It definitely entails the destruction of Iraqi families. It definitely entails the destruction of American Lives (over 21,00 wounded Americans) and Iraqi lives (over 40,000 dead an wounded Iraqi’s). It definitely entails the perpetuation of a multi-billion dollar defense industry (also run and controlled by the super-wealthy) - or the continuation of a money making entity for the super wealthy. It definitely entails the continuation of a conflict between Muslin and non-Muslin people. It definitely entails control (and an attempt to retain control or some relationship) over one of the richest oil bearing lands in the world. It short, it definitely entails the protection of self-interested positions and possessions by “any and all means” of the wealthy. Because whose sons and daughters are fighting over there? Whose children are dying? Which people are really exposed to terrorist threats in a public airport?

Ane then there is what the Iraqi war definitely does not entail. It definitely does not entail love, self-sacrifice, kindness, peace, sharing, giving, or compassion. It is never-the-less supported by self-proclaimed morally superior conservatives.

And how was (and how is) the Iraqi war being sold to you? Firstly by fear. You better be afraid of the terrorists so we need to use “any and all means” to protect you. Again through your instinctual need to feel safe. How else? Through your instinctual need to dominate. “We need to win this war to maintain our dominance”. “You like being the big dog don’t you? Well them we got to keep killing and slaughtering and....”

If you’re stuck on conservatism because you also believe that it’s the more “moral” position to partake in, you’d be sadly mistaken no matter which religion you subscribe to. I could get involved on this point, but do the math - what things are most meaningful to the God of Abraham, or Allah and or even Buddha. If you’re a Christian take this simple test - would Jesus be a conservative? Would Jesus support tax cuts for the wealthy? Would Jesus support the death penalty (or would he rather support the eternal soul of the individual and it’s potential to repent or even just grow?)? Would Jesus support a war based upon a potential threat (which as it turns out was probably at best a perceived threat and at worst a lie)? Would Jesus support killing innocent children in the name of one’s personal safety? Who are all these god-fearing conservatives kidding? The truth is, conservatives are not only devoid of any real moral fibre, they are also hypocrites as they continually point top their “good” and “godly” behavior to justify their immoral positions. It’s very easy to be a law abiding citizen and to remain a law abiding citizen when you have all the things that being an unlawful citizen could possibly bring. And while behaving morally when it is unnecessary to behave immorally is their selling point, the truth is something far less contrived. Simply that to be a conservative is to support those things which are most unimportant to god. And to ignore those things which are most important to god. All in exchange for protection of position. Things like self-sacrifice, love, caring, the rehabilitation of souls, the relinquishment of wealth, the relinquishment of power, and the relinquishment of self are abandoned for things like protectionism, accumulation of wealth, power, punishment, control and war.